Menu

Live Blogging The Third Presidential Debate

8:40 Welcome all to another installment of Live Blogging The Presidential Debate! I hope you can join in- we set a record for participation and visits on this blog during the last debate, and I hope we can break it tonight. And this gives me an opportunity to remind viewers that if they want to get on the distribution list for the regular posts here, just shoot me an email at dickinso@middlebury.edu And tonight, I promise (Anna are you listening?) that we will be employing the new live blogging software so – in theory – you don’t need to refresh your screen to catch the latest comments.

For what it is worth, CNN “instapoll” has Obama winning, but evidently within the poll’s margin of error. Of course, the real “poll” is how the voters actually react. But I guess it’s safe to say that it’s likely neither side “won” by a margin large enough to swing this race in their direction. Both sides can claim victory: Obama had some more memorable lines and probably won on style points, but Romney probably convinced voters that he’s certainly qualified to be commander-in-chief.

But this wasn’t a really a debate about foreign policy – it was a debate about domestic issues designed to win over swing state voters. That’s one reason why Romney spent so much time emphasizing defense spending – he sees it as a jobs issue, not a foreign policy issue.

It’s worth reminding you: who “won” the debate doesn’t tell us much about what impact the debate will have on the vote. Past history suggests that third debates don’t move voters very much, and nothing I saw tonight indicates that this third debate will have much impact on the national vote. Will it affect swing state voters in states like Ohio?

Beyond the few memorable lines, there’s not much difference between the two in terms of substance. That meant Obama has to try to make Romney appear as a unsteady – flipflopper? – by referencing previous statements he had made. But it didn’t seem as if these attacks really played well.

Bottom line: As I suggested in my previous post, it was not likely that this debate was going to produce much of a shift in voter sentiment. Romney, understandably, spoke in broad strokes, while the President, who has a record to run on, was not shy in citing his successes.

Of course, foreign policy is not going to decide this election, and here I think Mitt was playing a deeper game. His repeated references to a strong military was undoubtedly an effort to attract swing state voters in areas where military contractors, and bases, are located (see Virginia, and Florida.)

It is clear that Romney’s goal tonight was to appear as a credible commander-in-chief. To do so, he sought to avoid coming across as too militaristic, and instead adopted a policy of “me tooism” by essentially coopting the President’s policy stances while avoiding staking out any detailed policies of his own. The President, in contrast, acted more as a challenger who knows he is in potential trouble. I think he probably scored more points, and had more memorable lines (horses and bayonets!) but the risk is that his tone, which bordered on sarcasm at time, might not have won over the undecided voters.

This is how each side wants to frame this election. Obama: I inherited a mess, and Mitt’s policies would simply reprise the policies that got us into this mess. What would he do? Pay teachers, tax the wealthy, kill bad guys, rebuild infrastructure, and finished on a high note!

Again, evidence of the New, more moderate and conciliatory Mitt – he says we can work with China. And now back to the military. I’ve got to believe he thinks this is a jobs issue. Building up the military is going to win him some votes somewhere.

Comment on drones? Mitt: Me Too! When Mitt goes beyond me too, he does two things – criticizing the President’s accomplishments, and promising to lead through strength. Otherwise, there’s not much flesh on these bones.

(Commentators – I realize you have strong views, but remember – this debate is not directed toward partisans like you who have their minds made up – it’s directed toward the small numbers of undecideds.)

Question: does Mitt win simply by holding Obama to a draw, and at least appearing credible on foreign policy? Because I think that is his goal tonight – to score a draw on foreign policy, come across as credible, make no mistakes, and realize that the election will turn on the economy.

Wow. The President has just gone over some type of line – he can barely contain his disgust with Mitt. Is the tone too patronizing? Submarines that go under water? Horses and bayonets. Don’t forget the ships that float!

Is it me, or the President overly aggressive by staying constantly on the attack? Or is this playing well out there? When he pivots to education, hiring teachers, that plays better. Fascinating how much of this debate is focusing on domestic policy.

(Seb – if you saw my diatribe at the foreign policy panel last Thursday night – that’s exactly the point I made: presidents are constrained in their ability to deviate from their predecessor’s foreign policy commitments.)

Question 3: Regrets that Mubarak is gone? This gives Obama a chance to highlight commonalities with what young people want here. Second time that Obama has turned foreign policy into a domestic issue. Smart move.

Several of you are noting that there’s not really much difference between the two of them on Syria. Obama drives this point home, by in effect saying that proves his administration is doing the right thing. Mitt doesn’t really seem to disagree.

Obama is doing well when he recites what he has accomplished but I think he scores less well when he turns to attack the Mittster. Note the use of the words “forceful” and especially “thoughtful” – he used that twice in the last minute.

Again – and I don’t want to put too fine point on this – Mitt is consciously walking back from any overtly militaristic statements. It’s almost as if he sees himself as the front runner. Really tip toeing through foreign policy landmines here.

Obama’s trying to walk a fine line here – which reflects his line toward Syria more generally – between arguing for helping Syria without going all in. It will be interesting to see if Mitt goes all in here.

Mitt’s response is playing better with men than with women. Obama has twice referenced his experience as “manager” and as having experience making these decisions, implying of course that Mitt lacks that experience.

It’s almost as if Obama views himself as the challenger attacking Romney’s record! This is a clear reminder that Obama knows where the polls are heading, and he views this as an opportunity to reverse the trend.

Romney: we can’t kill our way out of this – a direct effort to attract the women’s support. But Obama’s reference to both keeping the nation secure, and at the same time pulling out of Afghanistan, plays well with the women in the focus group.

As is fitting for the topic, the President is boring in on Mitt as the latter gives a somewhat rambling response. Mitt immediately tries to inoculate the debate from Bin Laden’s killing by acknowledging it up front.

And, of course, there will be the obligatory attack on China’s currency and trading practices. Part of Romney’s difficulty will be due to the fact that the President has been a relative hardliner on the war on terror, so it’s hard for Romney to go one better there on issues like drone strikes, Guantanamo Bay, rendition policy or even the Afghan war.

This does not mean he should be overly deferential to the President, however. Obama is going to wrap himself in the commander-in-chief’s role – “I made the call to kill Bin Laden” – and Romney has to be careful about letting the President use that as his default position. Instead, I expect the Middle East – Libya, Syria and Iran – to be a focal point tonight.

8:52. We’ll be paying attention to the focus group tonight. Note that women are an important demographic tonight. As I’ve noted in several previous posts, I think Romney’s gains have come disproportionately from women. But that makes for a potential vulnerability tonight, in that he does not want to come out as too militaristic.

8:50. Yes Anna, the second time is the charm. Software up and running. By the way, Anna’s research was highlighted on Andrew Sullivan’s site today in one of his debate previews. I sure hope her analysis is correct.

8:46 As you all know, the topic tonight is foreign policy. If you read my previous post, you know that I don’t think that this debate is likely to have nearly the impact that the first debate did, for a variety of reasons.

108 comments

Matt – Bain…probably Obama’s best “tactical weapon” not used!! Anybody aware of Bain’s modus operandi might not be surprised but it should have at least been brought to light for those who didn’t understand Romney’s role in the displacement of so many jobs over his time at the helm.

Regarding the twitterverse, same as always – Dems were enamoured with Obama and saw it as a hands down defeat.
As for Republicans, well, I don’t really follow them on twitter, but I would put money on the flip for them.
Most likely both sides cited Obama’s aggressiveness as the deciding factor in each camp’s ‘win.’

Hmm…can’t quite agree with the authors commentary. I thought romney looked like a sweaty dick nixon and sounded like a babbling empty-headed sarah palin. Not presidential, not principled – completely spineless.